About your Search

20130318
20130326
STATION
MSNBCW 10
CNNW 2
KNTV (NBC) 2
KQED (PBS) 2
CSPAN 1
CSPAN2 1
KGO (ABC) 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
LANGUAGE
English 23
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)
calling doma constitutional. >> it's not their rule to decide what's constitutional. doma was a law passed by the house and senate and signed into law by president clinton. and in our system of government, the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. >> and it will. starting tuesday. a constitutional law expert, nyu, and the president of founder of freedom and the right leaning heritage foundation. thank you to all of you for being here. folks who haven't followed this case as closely, how did we get here and why of these two cases being heard so close together? >> beginning with the second question, serendipity they're being heard together. winded they're way up through separate passes of the country to converge at the supreme court. the first case, perry case heard tuesday is a prop 8 case a state restriction on same-sex marriage. whereas the case herd wednesday, the defense of marriage act, whether or not federal benefits vts to be afforded to the same as couples married in their home states. >> the pew research poll showing support for same-se
the constitutionality of doma and then after it lost in district court, it decided not to defend the constitutionality, but that a heightened standard of review was applicable, and under that heightened standard of review, it could not pass constitutional muster. when the district court does this in the case before the court now, the house of representatives known as the bipartisan legal advisor regroup entered the case to defend on behalf of the house, claiming that the law was unconstitutional, which meant that the -- that at least there would be an adversary present, which there would be in the court appeals case. in the court appeals by a vote of to do want to buy they struck down the line and the cases now before the court. when the court granted review, it did something quite interesting. although both the house and the solicitor general as well as the plaintiffs all believe there is jurisdiction, the court independently raise the jurors -- the question of whether there's jurisdiction or not ended appointed a harvard law professor to appear as amica as to argue that everybody involved is wrong a
a challenge to the defense of marriage act, or doma. that federal law defines marriage as being one man and one woman. edith windsor of new york is a plaintiff in the doma case. she fought back when she received an inheritance tax bill for $363,000 when her partner of 42 years died in 2009. here's what she told you in an earlier interview. >> new york state accepted my marriage as a marriage. and i believe and the justice department and the president agreed with me that the law doma is unconstitutional. doma is cruel. it discriminates against us for absolutely no value to the country. and we'd like to see that defeated all together. >> joe johns is in washington with more on what's ahead this week. morning, joe. >> morning. these are two of the most important cases of the year for the supreme court. the case involving edith windsor is actually the second case scheduled to be heard this week on wednesday. that challenge to the federal defense of marriage act. this is the law passed by congress and signed by the pld in 1996 that takes away benefits of marriage of same-sex couples on the f
. wednesday's case is a challenge to doma, the defense of marriage act. it blocks the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages in the states where they are legal. after first defending the law, the obama administration switched sides and now says it's unconstitutional. both these cases come to the court in a political climate that's very different from what it was just four years ago when prop 8 was passed. janelle, raj. >> thanks, pete. >>> a bay area boy is now getting worldwide attention after preparing his own argument in favor of same-sex marriage and then sending it to the nation's highest court. 12-year-old daniel sent a letter to supreme court chief justice john roberts about next week's case. even though daniel and his sister have two dads, daniel feels he has a lot in common with the chief justice, who has two adopted children of his own. before mailing his letter to roberts, daniel read it on youtube with hopes of reaching all the justices. >> you and i both know that family goes deeper than blood. i was lucky to be adopted by two guys i can both call dad. >> it's nev
. it will hear arguments for the defense of marriage act known as doma. we discuss the issues before the u.s. supreme court. it's the final stop on a long and winding legal road. let's begin with a look at how it all started. the week of valentine's day, 2004, newly elected san francisco mayor gavin newsom, boldly, some said recklessly orders to grant marriage
. she also believes the justices may come to a compromise, even portions of doma may be struck down. >> i think it will be appealing for conservatives on the court because it's a question of the federal government coming in to legislate in an area that has been traditionally reserved for the states making marriage law. i think it's a very conservative argument that will appeal to more conservative members of the court. then the liberal members of the court will be excited about being able to sort of affirm a commitment to progressive values like same-sex marriage. >> reporter: here's a breakdown of what may happen in the next few days. if the court strikes down prop 8 as a violation of constitutional rights same-sex marriage would become legal nationwide. or the cot can support prop 8, that means the state can decide whether or not to legalize same marriage. the supporters could be found to lack standing. some legal experts think the lower court rulings would stand if that were the case. >>> a berkeley couple will also attend the hearing. they've
come to a compromise, even portions of doma may be struck down. >> i think it will be appealing for conservatives on the court because it's a question of the federal government coming in to legislate in an area that has been traditionally reserved for the states making marriage law. i think it's a very conservative argument that will appeal to more conservative members of the court. then the liberal members of the court will be excited about being able to sort of affirm a commitment to progressive values like same-sex marriage. >> reporter: here's a breakdown of what may happen in the next few days. if the court strikes down prop 8 as a violation of constitutional rights same-sex marriage would become legal nationwide. or the cot can support prop 8, that means the state can decide whether or not to legalize same marriage. the supporters could be found to lack standing. some legal experts think the lower court rulings would stand if that were the case. >>> a berkeley couple will also attend the hearing. they've been together for 13 years and raised four boys. they say they want t
and doma. >> i'm optimistic. look how the courts have dealt with this in california in the last six years. look at the polling in california from the time we passed proposition eight to outlaw gay marriage to where we are in the public polls now. it has changed all over california and it's beginning to change all over the country. you see that in the corporations wecorporations' responses you see that in elected official's responses from former vice presidents senators and throughout the country. i think it's really flipped in the last seven or eight years in terms of the public perception of this issue. result i think the courts will follow that. >> michael: optimism j lazarus thank you so much for coming into "the war room." >> thank you. >> michael: an unique question and answer session puts the african-american experience in a whole new light. >> we could find our own way by standing up for the truth. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. (vo) she's joy behar. >>current will
of marriage act, doma. and there are reports of people already lining up outside the court to hear these arguments. and joining me now is the executive director for the foundation for equal rights. thank you for joining me. i want to get a preview of the case that you're going to present to the supreme court next week. >> sure. on tuesday, ted and david are going to go in that courtroom and they're going to make the case that one, 14 times the supreme court has said there's a fundamental right to marry for all americans. two, that denying gay and lesbian couples that right all rights them and hurs their families. and three, allowing gay and lesbian couples access to this right to make that pledge of public commitment through love and marriage hurts no one else. >> it must be buoyed by a group that agreed that children who are raised with gay parents that are married have a much more stable home life for them. but when it comes to whether or not this should be a state versus federal issue, we are seeing governors approach it quite differently. you have colorado's governor hickenloop
possible. i'm sorry. i think they're going to decide it on the prop 8 case on -- and doma on standing. on who has standing to bring. especially doma. they'll decide it on a narrow -- that somebody doesn't have standing to bring the case and same with prop 8. so it will overturn it. it will overturn prop 8 in california. i think that's gone. without a doubt. but i'm going to hold out the big optimistic, just let everybody get married decision. i don't hope -- i hope for that but i don't believe it will happen. >> stephanie: what makes me nervous is whin you have somebody like a -- is when you have -- i was just doing a hernia test on jim. you have somebody like ruth bader ginsburg, she's pro-choice but roe v. wade did it create a backlash. that's a little unnerving right? >> right. except that i think the nation's ready for that. i mean you know, especially young people. what is it? 80% of young people are people under 30 -- that's young people. i feel so old. >> stephanie: all right grandpa. >> get off my lawn! >> stephanie: drop the prunes for a minute. go ahead. >> that they support
of the defense of marriage act. a few days before the supreme court will look at both doma, defense of marriage act, and california's prop 8. it also puts her in line with top democrats heavily weighing 2016 bids, of course. could this mean a move for her already, eventual candidacy? chad griffin, president of human rights campaign, and joel walsh editor at large for "salon" and msnbc political analyst and laughing, and joyously involved in fascinatine inine ining piec. hillary clinton has come forward in a very well-produced video. very well done. and i listened to it all today and it's well done. here's why question. how did it happen? we were talking, the producers and i, when is she going to do it, how is she going to do it? >> i knew the clint nts for a long time. i grew up in arkansas. over the last few years every chance i had when i was around people in leadership positions, i urged them to fully evolve and come out in support of marriage equali equality. that includes former secretary clinton sometime clint clinton. sometimes in the last ten days or so she reached out to do this video
, will be hearing arguments on two landmark cases. the federal defense of marriage act or doma and proposition 8. so what can next week mean for politicians? mark murray is standing by. so mark, if the court strikes down these laws, do you think that could potentially help politicians in both parties? >> i think you could see more governors, more state legislatures feel like they might have free reign for gay marriage in their states. craig, i will say you're already seeing such a rush on this in states with democratic control. and the change in attitudes has been striking. in our own "wall street journal" poll, 30% of the country supported gay marriage in 2004. that is now a majority. 51%. so a full 20 or more percentage points increase in just nine years. that's amazing in social attitudes and in american politics. >> it kind of reminds me, when roe v. wade happened, a lot of politicians could say this is settled law. so you don't have to spend a great deal of time engaged in debates with a potential political opponent over it. if the court, if it keeps these laws intact, how could that complicate
the justices will hear arguments challenging the federal defense of marriage act, doma. what a week. the line began forming last night as our own justice department correspondent pete williams points out it may be the earliest we've ever seen a crowd form up there at the supreme court. we'll be right back. ♪ [ male announcer ] from the way the bristles move to the way they clean, once you try an oral-b deep sweep power brush, you'll never go back to a regular manual brush. its three cleaning zones with dynamic power bristles reach between teeth with more brush movements to remove up to 100% more plaque than a regular manual brush. and even 76% more plaque than sonicare flexcare in hard to reach areas. oral-b deep sweep 5000 power brush. life opens up when you do. >>> welcome back to "hardball." the republican party has moved so far right that any time a hint of reasonableness creeps into a republican's comments especially comments from an elected republican that person is quickly snapped back into line. that's what happened this week when ohio governor john kasich who i liked changed his po
to look at the proposition 8 in california, and to declare it unconstitutional and also to repeal doma. these are two big cases. and it's going to have a major impact. >> terry, you cover the supreme court for us. it seems to put two justices especially in an interesting position, justice kennedy, the traditional swing vote for the justices. but maybe, even more chief justice john roberts, 58 years old, likely to be chief justice for a long time. you see how support for gay marriage has surged in the last year. even if he personally may be against it, he's likely to look and see, 10, 15 years, still sitting on the bench, it's going to be 70% support in the country. >> there's an institutional challenge to the court in the astonishing speed that the country has changed its mind. the people are way ahead of the elite. the president, when he ran for president was against gay marriage. the supreme court, was in a generation outlawed sodomy for gay people but not for straight people. they overturned that decision. he doesn't want to be that chief justice caught on the wrong side. at the sam
at mhpshow.com. that's our show for today. i'll see you tomorrow to talk about the supreme court case, doma, and prop 8. all that on mph tomorrow. coming up "weekends with alex witt." is saving money better than not saving money? [ kids ] yeah! ok. if you saved enough money, what would you do with it? i would buy an island made out of candy. an island made out of candy? it would be like sand full of sugar. sand full of sugar? the water could be made out of like soda, and when you take a shower it could be made out of like hot fudge. ooooo. what about the animals? what would they be made out of? um, i'm assuming they'd be made out of candy? [ male announcer ] it's not complicated. saving is better. switch to at&t and your family can save up to 100 dollars a month with mobile share. ♪
prediction about what you think, van, will happen next week with the u.s. supreme court? >> i think that doma will be struck down, and i think kennedy is the decisive player. i think will is right, you won't see a big case, it's legal everywhere, it's done. i would love to see that, but i don't think they will do that. i think it's a narrow decision. >> it will affect two or three states. >> okay. thank you to both of you. van jones and will cain. >> you bet. >>> mystery caper. the case of nancy grace's missing cuff necklace. the prime suspect may be anderson cooper. at od, whatever business you're in, that's the business we're in with premium service like one of the best on-time delivery records and a low claims ratio, we do whatever it takes to make your business our business. od. helping the world keep promises. let's see what you got. rv -- covered. why would you pay for a hotel? i never do. motorcycles -- check. atv. i ride those. do you? no. boat. house. hello, dear. hello. hello. oh! check it -- [ loud r&b on car radio ] i'm going on break! the more you bundle, the more you save. now,
defense of marriage act or doma which defines federal acknowledgment of same-sex marriag marriages. at stake? federal marriage benefits for those who are legally married. the arguments laid out before the nine justices this week will establish a furd precedence for the next chapter for the fight in marriage equality. this is a watershed moment. but it is just part of a long and continuing struggle because the struggle has already been quite long. in the summer of 1969, five days of riots sparked by the aggressive anti-guy police action in new york city founded a battle cry that helped to launch the guy rights movement. a year later, a couple in minnesota was denied a marriage license because state law limited marriage to persons of the opposite sex. their case made to the u.s. supreme court back in 1972. it was dismissed without so much as a written opinion. the court ruled that same sex couples have no constitutional rights married and that the legal challenge itself failed to raise a substantial federal question at all. but the struggle continued. it would be another 14 years bef
alimit of all the different parties on that. >> if the high court decides on doma, what does that mean for opponents for same-sex marriage? is that a settled issue, but is it like obama care and we'll still be talking about it years from now? >> we'll still be talking about it. let's let the states decide one at a time and that's probably the best way. public opinion is definitely shifting. maybe ten years from now, they all will be there. >> if the states decide, then we have patch work of laws where you have folks who can get married in california, but if they move to nebraska, are they recognized there? whatever your politics, there needs to be a settled universal law. >> for a while, gay rights advocates have argued that this shouldn't be settled in the courts, because he wanted a victory of public opinion. he wanted states one by one to have their people come over to the right side of the issue in their view. but i think that even andrew sullivan have come to the point where they say the majority of americans support same-sex marriage and those who oppose it are becoming less and
by the state's voters in 2008. justices will also consider the 1996 defense of marriage act or doma that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages. the central claim in both cases is that plaintiffs were denied equal protection of the law. later today a panel of attorneys who have been active in the debate and litigation will give a preview of what to expect by the high court. the event is hosted by george washington university law school, and you can see it live beginning at 4 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> tonight on "first ladies," called a bigamist and adulterer, rachel jackson dies of an apparent heart attack before andrew jackson takes office. his niece, emily donaldson, becomes the white house hostess but is later dismissed as fallout from a scandal. and during the next administration, angelica van buren is the white house hostess for her father-in-law, president martin van buren, who is a widower. of live tonight at 9 eastern on c-span and c-span3, also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> a hearing now by a house foreign affairs subcommittee on the threat of hezbollah,
, republicans came in though defend doma. the case comes in a different political climate than four years ago when prop 8 became law. an example, yesterday republican adviser karl rove said in the next election he could see pub one of the republican candidates favoring same-sex marriage. >> we will be covering a lot next week. thank you very much. >>> an apology from the irs over a training video that parodied star trek and paid for by taxpayer money. kelly o'donnell is in washington with more on that story. good morning to you. >> reporter: good morning. well, anytime your tax money is wasted, it's frustrating but especially so when it is the irs that's accused of poor judgment. a congressional committee found this star trek spoof didn't have any training value in it at all. to boldly go hollywood. ♪ the irs spent $60,000. >> captain log. >> reporter: making two videos including this elaborate "star trek" parody. >> sorry about the uniforms, the dry cleaner gave us the wrong order. >> how fast can you get out of here. >> reporter: and of course mr. spock. but they aren't actors. no they ar
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)